Analog footage isn't exactly sped up or slowed down to create a slow motion effect. They simply film at a higher frame rate then play it back at normal speed so instead of 30fps, they have recorded 90fps but when you play back a 90fps recording at 30fps, it now takes 3 seconds to cycle through that 1 second of 90fps. So it's not simply a matter of speeding or slowing a playback machine, it's a technique of filming and produces a non standard reel of film.So guess what!!!That's why they forced the media to film it as a secondary off the projections screen. Had they given them original footage to duplicate, the news techs would have known IMMEDIATELY it was faked when they saw it was 90fps.

You're all isolating one element of a mountain of evidence that disproves the moon missions. So say Jarrah and his predecessors are wrong, based on the facts he does provide he would absolutely destroy the propagandists in court. Their argument literally boils down to a faith based belief of we went there, trust me. When you compare the scientific testing and data that is admissible in court, the collection of information he's compounded absolutely shames the defense. I've taken part in these debates, the NASA enthusiasts, ex employees and other accredited debaters end up painting themselves into a corner every time.So if it were a judicial issue, especially before a jury, he would win even if those jurors still believed we went to the moon because they are bound by the procedures of our courts.There's just too much data in his favor as well as the discrediting of the data given by the propagandists. The accusing side maintains the same claim, the same facts. The defense, NASA, changes their story often several times a year.

Besides, just watch the footage of the rover doing burn outs.The moon dust gets cast upward a couple feet while these tires are just thrashing through it like a burn out on earth. At 1/3 the earth's gravity, it should be going well over 3 times as high since there is no gas atmosphere to cause friction yet you see it behave just as it does on earth and get very little upward projection. Compare that footage to a wimpy kids go cart in the sane and you get greater projection.

Analog footage isn't exactly sped up or slowed down to create a slow motion effect. They simply film at a higher frame rate then play it back at normal speed so instead of 30fps, they have recorded 90fps but when you play back a 90fps recording at 30fps, it now takes 3 seconds to cycle through that 1 second of 90fps.

Not an option with the video cameras of the time. Percy's argument is that they actually recorded 60 FIELDS per second, interlaced, and that these could be played at 2x speed to achieve 30 (half-resolution) frames per second. As I showed, the ratios just don't work: 2x is not fast enough, and Percy actually did his at 1.5x. That's the point: NONE of it works. You need to speed it up 2.46x to get lunar gravity, and then everyone's arms go crazy.

Quote

Their argument literally boils down to a faith based belief of we went there, trust me.

No, it's based on a MOUNTAIN of evidence, from photos and videos, to independent tracking of the Apollo crafts, to the detectable equipment left behind, ALL of which COMPLETELY supports a manned moon landing.

Quote

The moon dust gets cast upward a couple feet while these tires are just thrashing through it like a burn out on earth.

So?

Quote

At 1/3 the earth's gravity,

1/6th.

Quote

it should be going well over 3 times as high since there is no gas atmosphere to cause friction yet you see it behave just as it does on earth

No, you absolutely do not, and you have to be completely deluded to think so! The dust does NOT billow the way it would on Earth, and it instead follows a perfectly ballistic trajectory of the kind that can ONLY happen in a vacuum. There's also nothing wrong with the height at which it goes; on Earth it would only go up a tiny fraction of that without air currents to move it around.

You're absolutely wrong about slow motion, this technique has been used for almost a century, once being known as over cranking telling you just how long it's been done. I've had this debate before as well and the frame rates I gave were simply for explaining how it's done, not give the exact rate used at the time. The reality is they would film at 20fps then playback at 10fps. It was originally known as over cranking because back in those days, the camera speed was literally controlled by how fast the user cranked the handle. If they wanted a manipulated playing back rate, they would crank faster or slower than normal.Please tell me again how it wasn't an option on the cameras just a few decades ago but was an option on cameras nearly a century old.

So fails how, you provided no science and contested the basic laws of physics.

Whenever I encounter the billowing claim, the term is simply used because it's one many will be unfamiliar with and it is in truth a layman's label for some fundamentals of physics that can be explored under more specific and accurate terms. The particle is going to have a wave pattern, fair enough. A billow. Well is it going to be a static wave pattern? Or will it clip mid flight due to a variable. This is due to the gas atmosphere and what the term billowing is actually referring to. But the way you use it...well it's phantom energy, woooooooo

So the billowing argument again. I've encountered this before but you're literally trying to claim an infinite variable as your evidence, it has no scientific merit. Billowing is the assumption that there will be an air disturbance other than the air turbulence caused from the friction between the particle and gas. This argument tries to say that billowing is the same as turbulence or simply, friction when it's not. The friction between the particle and the air is going to effect it's trajectory, peak and hang time. It's not simply going to get swept away in a magical wave of energy that has no source of production. So what is the source of energy for your claimed billowing? If you use the term billowing properly in the way that it can be interchanged with turbulence or friction, now we're still talking about trajectory and friction with the gas atmosphere.This is to make the point that the billowing argument is a complete shill. You're literally saying there is energy being added to the particles travel because it's in a gas that is causing friction and pressure on it, even when the particle is static! So in an environment with greater resistance and variables to this resistance such as humidity, pressure etc the particle is somehow going to travel more. It's the most ridiculous perspective you can take and would only convince someone who is less educated than yourself. I'm not that person. You are stating that there will be atmosphere disturbance to cause billowing but from what? A particle 1/10 the size of a grain of rice? A phantom gust of wind? The moth man?!?If all the energy moving that particle is in the particle, that means the gas it's traveling through it static. So where is this mystery energy coming from?Billowing is a variable, not a constant. It's not a valid point of reference let alone piece of evidence. It can occur but isn't an absolute so you're literally trying to play the wild card.Do you have even a basic 8th grade understanding of Newtonian physics and these terms?

Billow simply means it has moved in a wave pattern, lmao.So whether it is in a gas atmosphere or a vacuum, it's billowing.

You're absolutely wrong about slow motion, this technique has been used for almost a century, once being known as over cranking telling you just how long it's been done.

Overcranking only works with film cameras. This was video.

Quote

Please tell me again how it wasn't an option on the cameras just a few decades ago but was an option on cameras nearly a century old.

If you don't understand the difference between film and video cameras, then you need VERY remedial study on this issue.

Quote

This is due to the gas atmosphere and what the term billowing is actually referring to. But the way you use it...well it's phantom energy, woooooooo

No, I didn't, and you know it, LIAR. You've been shown to be an ignoramus, and instead of admitting you're wrong--which your ego won't allow you to do--you have to lie to save face. That doesn't work here, sorry.

Quote

Billowing is the assumption that there will be an air disturbance other than the air turbulence

No, just the PRESENCE of air is enough.

Quote

This argument tries to say that billowing is the same as turbulence or simply, friction when it's not.

Billowing has nothing to do with friction, idiot.

Quote

So what is the source of energy for your claimed billowing?

It's called "air pressure," idiot.

Quote

You are stating that there will be atmosphere disturbance to cause billowing but from what?

AIR PRESSURE!!!

The sad part is, YOU tried to use ridicule against ME for suggesting this! Pathetic.

Quote

So whether it is in a gas atmosphere or a vacuum, it's billowing.

No, you ONLY get billowing with an atmosphere. What's going on in the footage is CLASSIC ballistic motion. How can it do that if there's all this air in the way? Can YOU reconstruct it in full air pressure? Huh? Can you?

Wow, what will you deny next, that you need to eat, sleep, drink and shit to survive?

I'm not sure I want to waste my time on you because you're so completely ignorant and simply a trouble maker. You're not educated, you're a denier. Overcranking is the most crude form, it's been done with all types of cameras since the 1920's.

This is absolutely why NASA forced them to get their footage by filming the projector screen, they filmed at higher fps then played that footage back at a standard speed.

You also have no education in physics what so ever and your vocabulary definitions are equally as poor.A particle is billowing on the moon, mars, in water. Billow simply means move in a wave like pattern.Billowing is a really simple term, not a scientific term at all. Billowing has nothing to do with air pressure and is not an effect or force principle. Billowing takes place without air since a billow is simply a very poor term for describing trajectory. It's not specific or relative.The air is not a source of positive energy in this case because it's placing friction upon the particle. So while this may cause it to move slower, more stable etc it's also simply going to make it move less in most respects. Specifically, it will limit the particles travel in height while it may indeed prolong it's billow or for the layman such as yourself, arc trajectory. Yet the particle's billow on the moon in the footage hardly moves in trajectory upward and in it's arc without static pressure and friction of the earth to slow it down and cause resistance.

So feel free to chop up my posts all you like, counter them with your less than 9th grade education then snicker all arrogantly with your delusion of superiority and name calling because the fact is, you don't know the facts and have absolutely no understanding about anything you're saying. You're literally a rude, smug, snide and arrogant know nothing know it all calling me names while defining words and principles that every educational source on the planet defining and explaining them is in total contradiction with your use and claimed definition.

Billow does not mean what you and the other propagandists try to make it mean. In fact, you try to make it a principle of aerodynamics which is both ridiculous and hilarious!I'm an open minded, level headed and very well educated person which is a trait of the well educated and more importantly, intelligent that are able to then use that education to make observations, hypothesis, conclusions then prove or disprove them. You're not doing that, you're just closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears while you kick and scream terms of science producing nonsense.

I realize that I am bringing back an old topic but I could not manage to be able to start a new topic and the information I want to go over fits in this very topic, being Jarrah White total lack of math and physics comprehension skills.

This has to do with his Radiation Anomaly series of videos. As an Electronic Engineer, I could not fail to notice his constant use of terms, figures and ranges that always either select for the highest possible values form any given range or use of units that he obviously think sound impressive but in the way he uses them it is obvious he has no clue what they mean.

The best example is his constant use of XXX Million electron Volts making it seem like some massively huge number implying massive energy levels in the Van Allen Belts. It is very obvious that he goes out of his way to select units and values that only appear to support his position while at the same time misdirecting the actual values of those very units. Considering that the unit of and electronVolt is, depending on the usage it can also refer to the mass, is a measure of the electric potential energy of one electron. In actual energy amounts it is so tiny that it takes thousands of them to even be registered on measuring equipment. Of course that is only the start of his massive overuse and exploitation of scientific figures. He also always assumes that worst case scenarios are always the norm and no matter what the readings or trends are that there is never low energy periods in the belts or weaker area that can be used to bypass those danger zones.

I also love to note that Moon Hoaxers in general always only ever show Apollo flights path from above the Earth as if they hope that everyone they are talking to forgets that up and down exist. Even though the Apollo flight paths went either above or below the heavy zones of the belts they alway imply that they powered right through the middle and so they get to use every max value all of the time every time.

It illustrates not only their belief that their contempt for the intelligence of their audience but also their complete lack of understanding any scientific principles.

The best example is his constant use of XXX Million electron Volts making it seem like some massively huge number implying massive energy levels in the Van Allen Belts. It is very obvious that he goes out of his way to select units and values that only appear to support his position while at the same time misdirecting the actual values of those very units. Considering that the unit of and electronVolt is, depending on the usage it can also refer to the mass, is a measure of the electric potential energy of one electron. In actual energy amounts it is so tiny that it takes thousands of them to even be registered on measuring equipment.

Yes, we call that the Over 9000 Fallacy.

Quote

Of course that is only the start of his massive overuse and exploitation of scientific figures. He also always assumes that worst case scenarios are always the norm and no matter what the readings or trends are that there is never low energy periods in the belts or weaker area that can be used to bypass those danger zones.

Yes, they also seem to assume that they head right for the middle of the belts and fly around inside them for as long as possible.

Well I always find it hilarious that throwing out figures that I immediately recognize as being in the ball park of a AA battery for Van Allen Belt energy levels trying to be all scary. It makes for a perfect case of massive confirmation bias.

Then there is the constant use of quote from astrophysicists about the dangers and engineering issues associated with a 18 to 24 month trip to Mars as somehow confirming that the trip to the Moon was automatically lethal. What's more if the energy of the particles in the belt was as dangerous as they claim then no one living in the area where the Auroras are visible would be safe. They all should be weird mutants. It's those high energy particles that cause those light shows after all. True the air does mitigate the exposure but so did the hull of the Apollo spacecraft. Moreover when ever they quote shielding levels for the ship it is always the minimal shielding as if the astronauts were taped to those parts of the ship the entire trip unable to move!

You can see their reasoning, always report the max of any potential exposure but only ever use the smallest value to refer to any protection. This leading to imply that NASA's own raw data proves them right because the NASA doctors reported much lower figures then their assumptions imply.

Yes I do love that they think you can't fly over a magnetically defined doughnut.